Talk:Artificial stupidity

oh, sry i didnt notice the PROD.

The Michael O'Connell Source is dubious

The Michael O'Connell Source is dubious and the factual accuracy of those sentences that cite it should be verified.

The doctoral thesis Art as ‘artificial stupidity’ by Michael O'Connell is referenced for most cited sentences in the introduction. There are a number of issues. For instance, the claim that Sadie Plant's book Zeros and Ones suggests that Ada Lovelace used the concept of artificial unintelligence to criticize those who underestimated the computer. This claim cites both O'Connell's thesis and Plant's book, however it seems that the reference to Plant's book is completely based on O'Connell's thesis, since the relevant section of the book (p. 89 according to O'Connell and the wiki citation) which discusses artificial unintelligence actually does not mention Ada Lovelace, and is about Turing and his contemporaries. I suspect that this kind of use of O'Connell's thesis (accepting his work and citations as factual while it clearly contains errors) might be true for the rest of the intro. In general, the heavy use of his thesis in the intro doesn't seem appropriate for such a broad topic. --Zelous cat (talk) 11:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I'm thinking that it may be best to revert back to before that was added. - Bilby (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

References

A good example

I think it would be a good example to give the play of the chess machines on lower levels. In that case, certain elements of strategy analysis are deliberately skipped to disable the computer's ability to find a move that's too good for that level. Moreover, the machine will randomly ommit to choose the best move found. Sometimes it will pick even the most catastrofic move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.126.249.21 (talk) 12:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

clerks

Interesting subject. There are also many human implementations of artificial stupidity. One from the early days of computers: keypunchers who punched input for years became so familiar with the applications that they could spot some errors on the coding sheets. The rule was: punch what you see. Don't use your mind: artificial stupidity. Of course there were reasons for this, and it kept everybody out of trouble. ( Martin | talk • contribs 06:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Off-topic content

The subject of this article is the deliberate limitation by humans of the abilities of computer programs. The phrase "artificial stupidity" has also been used in a variety of other contexts, but these contexts are not relevant to this article. I've removed the following content from the article, and will leave it here in case someone wants to find a place for it elsewhere on Wikipedia (though it should be noted that it relies heavily on a thesis by Micheál O'Connell, the factual accuracy of which has already been called into question above). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended content

Artificial stupidity is commonly used as a humorous opposite of the term artificial intelligence (AI), often as a derogatory reference to the inability of AI technology to adequately perform its tasks. T. Durham, author of the journal article "On Artificial Stupidity", seems to view computers as naturally possessing intelligence. It is only due to bad programming that a computer appears unintelligent. Durham states: "There is no such thing as AI, only artificial stupidity, which is what happens when computers are not given the knowledge they need." The term has appeared in connection with other subject areas, mostly related to computing technology but also with respect to human behaviour. Sadie Plant suggests that Ada Lovelace, the nineteenth-century mathematician, employed something like artificial stupidity to criticize those who underestimated the future potential for calculating machines. Hito Steyerl has applied the term with reference to the stupidity of not recognizing the power and dangers of algorithms because of their invisibility. On a different note, artificial stupidity, for Avital Ronnel, describes the shocking misuse of intelligence measurement during the eugenics era in the USA: people were artificially deemed unintelligent. Artist and researcher Micheál O'Connell employed the term artificial stupidity for his doctoral thesis with reference both to questions of human intelligence and technological intelligence. Artificial stupidity can refer to the, usually dubious, human ability to "act stupid" or "dumb down" but he suggests that it can also be a means of creative unearthing. He cites John Roberts' attention to contemporary artists and their use of a "thinking stupidity" as a "rejection of the dominant discourses". A suggestion is that one reason for the resilience of the "art system" is its cunning inverse pretentiousness; on its own art seems stupid from the point of view of utilitarian interests, commerce, entertainment, academia and political agendas. As well as discussing art and creativity O'Connell advocates for a readdressing of the significance of human intelligence against, the often palpable, stupidity of the technological sphere including AI (understood in the broadest sense). Artificial stupidity as a limitation of artificial intelligence Artificial stupidity is not just delivering deliberate errors into the computer, but it could also be seen as a limitation of computer artificial intelligence. Dr. Jay Liebowitz argues that "if intelligence and stupidity naturally exist, and if AI is said to exist, then is there something that might be called "artificial stupidity?"" Liebowitz pointed out that the limitations are: Ability to possess and use common sense Development of deep reasoning systems Ability to vary an expert system's explanation capability Ability to get expert systems to learn Ability to have distributed expert systems Ability to easily acquire and update knowledge — Liebowitz, 1989, Page 109 References